-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Gavita-Pro 1000w 400v (new generation hps)
- Thread starter Doc420
- Start date
in a greenhouse application the lamps would still have an acceptable lifespan due to the fact that they only run a few hours a day versus 12 hours or more a day in an artificial light only setting as well as supplemental lighting in a greenhouse tends to be seasonal not 365 days a year
I thought 400 hps was the normal lamp for greenhouse supplemental in EU. With PL Lighting being 400 hps design for many years before 1k lamps.
Is the 1k lamp now preferred in greenhouses?
Is the 1k lamp now preferred in greenhouses?
400W are no longer used, it's 600/750/1000W depending on the required light levels and uniformity. Most greenhouses use 3 phase 400V power which they generate themselves on natural gas. The surplus is sold back to the grid. The 1000W double ended lamp with the greenvision driver is already on the market for many years. With light levels used rising we see that most new projects where high light levels are required for production crops (and those are the majority, more than 2/3 of the 60.000 acres Dutch greenhouses produce fruits and vegetables) the 1000W simply outperforms the 600W in efficiency and you don't need that many fixtures.
the Gavita spokesman in the video said the Mirro finish on the reflector deteriorates and they suggest changing the metal insert as much as every year depending on environment.
Does Alanod (Mirro Manufacturer) have any tech info on this phenomina, as it appears to be a substantial expense for people to change out reflector metal.
It calls into question the worth of the Alanod Mirro product if it deteriorates that badly.
Does Alanod (Mirro Manufacturer) have any tech info on this phenomina, as it appears to be a substantial expense for people to change out reflector metal.
It calls into question the worth of the Alanod Mirro product if it deteriorates that badly.
Miro itself does not deteriorate that fast. It's mostly deposits that cause loss of reflection. Cleaning Miro is not that easy as scratching it will deteriorate the reflection even more. Calcium deposits etc. can be rinsed with a vinegar solution, a very soft cloth and rinse with distilled water to prevent deposits. Never polish it.
It's not that hard to calculate why investing in a new reflector once a year or every two years is not such a bad idea. In greenhouses (depending on whether they are "clean" or "dirty" greenhouses) with the lamps way high above the crop, we see deterioration of about 5 up to 7% yearly. High humidity, sprays, dust, anything in the air can set to the reflector surface and is heated up to high temperatures.
So let's say you lose 5% on your reflector a year ot if you are very clean in two years and you change your lamp once a year. Or you do it twice a year. That's a lot of lamp money for 5% extras light per year. A replacement reflector is not as expensive as a lamp and can bring you 5% more light so why spend so much money on lamps if you don't change the reflector and lose even more light? I see growers buy new lamps about every 2 harvests and still use 4 years old reflectors with the dust piling on them. Can you imagine that you might already have lost 5-10% of the reflectivity of your reflector? Changing a reflector can have a much bigger impact on your light than changing a lamp.
If spurr makes his Ulbricht he can do the measurements himself by comparing them to a new one. Oh.. for those big reflectors you need quite a big sphere
It's not that hard to calculate why investing in a new reflector once a year or every two years is not such a bad idea. In greenhouses (depending on whether they are "clean" or "dirty" greenhouses) with the lamps way high above the crop, we see deterioration of about 5 up to 7% yearly. High humidity, sprays, dust, anything in the air can set to the reflector surface and is heated up to high temperatures.
So let's say you lose 5% on your reflector a year ot if you are very clean in two years and you change your lamp once a year. Or you do it twice a year. That's a lot of lamp money for 5% extras light per year. A replacement reflector is not as expensive as a lamp and can bring you 5% more light so why spend so much money on lamps if you don't change the reflector and lose even more light? I see growers buy new lamps about every 2 harvests and still use 4 years old reflectors with the dust piling on them. Can you imagine that you might already have lost 5-10% of the reflectivity of your reflector? Changing a reflector can have a much bigger impact on your light than changing a lamp.
If spurr makes his Ulbricht he can do the measurements himself by comparing them to a new one. Oh.. for those big reflectors you need quite a big sphere
thank you for the fine info.
efficacy measurements for HPS lamps
efficacy measurements for HPS lamps
Earlier I promised to share with you our measurements in the Ulbricht sphere of some common North American lamps compared to our 1000W double ended Philips and our own Gavita single ended lamp.
These measurements were done using a calibrated Ulbricht sphere and a high frequency electronic ballast that was modified to tune the output to the exact value optimal for the lamp tested. Some lamps did not reach their full power on the used ballast, so in order to make a fair comparison we tuned the output of the ballast to every individual lamp so all lamps got exactly the same power. This means that though this is a fair comparison for the lamps (they all received exactly the same energy) it is not a guarantee that these values will be reached in any other ballast, as different ballasts / lamp combinations result in different output powers. Ballast losses were not calculated because every ballast has different losses.
If you measure the energy used (W, not amps!) by your ballast and it is less than the manufacturer specified value, that is an indication that the output specified is not reached (if the ballast manufacturers specifications were correct!).
Every lamp manufacturer or light lab that has a calibrated Ulbricht sphere, a high frequency tune-able ballast and a high frequency power analyzer can repeat these measurements for verification.
These were all new lamps, sourced from our distributors and some just bought in shops.
So here's something for the weekend to study. As you see the difference can be a stunning 30% more light using a different lamp and even more with a ballast that is tuned to the lamp.
I do hope this will motivate other lamp suppliers to publish their specifications in ppf so they can be compared.
We also have tests on the way for light maintenance but as you can imagine those take a while (6 months to a year to be exact).
efficacy measurements for HPS lamps
Earlier I promised to share with you our measurements in the Ulbricht sphere of some common North American lamps compared to our 1000W double ended Philips and our own Gavita single ended lamp.
These measurements were done using a calibrated Ulbricht sphere and a high frequency electronic ballast that was modified to tune the output to the exact value optimal for the lamp tested. Some lamps did not reach their full power on the used ballast, so in order to make a fair comparison we tuned the output of the ballast to every individual lamp so all lamps got exactly the same power. This means that though this is a fair comparison for the lamps (they all received exactly the same energy) it is not a guarantee that these values will be reached in any other ballast, as different ballasts / lamp combinations result in different output powers. Ballast losses were not calculated because every ballast has different losses.
If you measure the energy used (W, not amps!) by your ballast and it is less than the manufacturer specified value, that is an indication that the output specified is not reached (if the ballast manufacturers specifications were correct!).
Every lamp manufacturer or light lab that has a calibrated Ulbricht sphere, a high frequency tune-able ballast and a high frequency power analyzer can repeat these measurements for verification.
These were all new lamps, sourced from our distributors and some just bought in shops.
So here's something for the weekend to study. As you see the difference can be a stunning 30% more light using a different lamp and even more with a ballast that is tuned to the lamp.
I do hope this will motivate other lamp suppliers to publish their specifications in ppf so they can be compared.
We also have tests on the way for light maintenance but as you can imagine those take a while (6 months to a year to be exact).
Attachments
Great chart whazzup. Thanks for posting
So these are ALL 1K lamps I assume and you tuned down the ballast
to show output to a certain wattage used and that's shown on the chart.
Is that correct?
So these are ALL 1K lamps I assume and you tuned down the ballast
to show output to a certain wattage used and that's shown on the chart.
Is that correct?
These are not all 1000W lamps available on the US market, but the ones we have available for testing at the moment. Of course there can be individual tolerances or batch differences and that's why we have more than one lamp of each.
We underran and overran the lamps on different powers as modern electronic ballasts can be adjusted too, and to show what this does with efficiency. The 1000DE is still very decent at 600W, but a 600W 400V Philips EL is still 15% more efficient at 600W. You see that some lamps do not come to their optimal efficiency, some are very close to it. You also see that efficiency can be even higher when you boost a lamp. Agreed, you spend more on electricity and it will cause your lamp to wear out a bit earlier maybe, but who uses his lamps 20.000 hours (4 years!)? And you still have a better efficiency and more light, even if the lamp loses 5% per year it's 10% more light when you boost 15%.
The power delivered to each lamp was very accurate as we had full control of the ballast output. Test equipment is described in my previous ballast test topic.
We underran and overran the lamps on different powers as modern electronic ballasts can be adjusted too, and to show what this does with efficiency. The 1000DE is still very decent at 600W, but a 600W 400V Philips EL is still 15% more efficient at 600W. You see that some lamps do not come to their optimal efficiency, some are very close to it. You also see that efficiency can be even higher when you boost a lamp. Agreed, you spend more on electricity and it will cause your lamp to wear out a bit earlier maybe, but who uses his lamps 20.000 hours (4 years!)? And you still have a better efficiency and more light, even if the lamp loses 5% per year it's 10% more light when you boost 15%.
The power delivered to each lamp was very accurate as we had full control of the ballast output. Test equipment is described in my previous ballast test topic.
CrazyCanuck75
New member
Wow the science was way over my head there boys but thanks for the discussion none the less. Now lets see somebody buy a Pro1000 or even better a Pro600 and do a test grow with a regular 600 and see what we have. Oh, and fast, I'm in the market for a new 600-1000W setup.
the Phillips above has the best output even at 600 watts.....
Wow the science was way over my head there boys but thanks for the discussion none the less. Now lets see somebody buy a Pro1000 or even better a Pro600 and do a test grow with a regular 600 and see what we have. Oh, and fast, I'm in the market for a new 600-1000W setup.
Compared to the other lamps and amongst the US lamps the Hortilux is in the top. The Philips outputs 15% more light though, and that's quite a lot. After a year of use it still outputs 10% more than a new Hortilux, at the same electricity costs.
If you compare the Philips to what is marketed as the best electronic lamp on the market, the DigiLux (which certainly has the most expensive packaging), the Philips outputs 24% more light (twenty-four).
Now translate that in yield over a year and the number of fixtures you need.
If you compare the Philips to what is marketed as the best electronic lamp on the market, the DigiLux (which certainly has the most expensive packaging), the Philips outputs 24% more light (twenty-four).
Now translate that in yield over a year and the number of fixtures you need.
